Fourth batch of hyperhive#4042's Passive pass (see #4098/#4099/#4100
for the first three and the read-every-hit discipline this pass
uses). 44 hits across pr-review-gate.md (4), conventions.md (18), and
gotchas.md (22) -- highest genuine-catch rate so far, 23/44 (~52%),
because this architecture/mechanism documentation has a lot of "X
does Y via Z" sentences where the actor is already named
parenthetically or in a nearby clause -- the single most productive
rewrite shape across every batch so far.
Recurring rewrite shapes this batch:
- Actor already named in the same sentence, just not as the
grammatical subject: "X is configured per repo in its
branch-protection settings" -> "Each repo's branch-protection
settings configure X" (pr-review-gate.md); "the broker" (reserved
names), "rsvg-convert" (PNG rendering), "the website repo" (HTML/CSS
rendering), "systemd.globalEnvironment" (D-Bus address export), and
several more -- all the same shape.
- Subject already established one clause or one sentence earlier,
just needs continuing rather than restarting with a new passive
subject: "the harness reads HIVE_TOOL_GROUPS (...). Unrecognised
tokens are logged and skipped." -> "...logging and skipping
unrecognised tokens" (continues "the harness"), same pattern twice
more (job_queue::templates::rebuild, HIVE_CAPABILITIES resolution).
- Sibling-inconsistency: a bolded lead-in bullet was the one passive
sentence in an otherwise-active paragraph/table (the
read_host_journal capability row sat between two "may X" rows; the
HTML+CSS bullet's own tail clauses were already active voice around
the one passive lead phrase).
- One caught-and-fixed authoring mistake worth noting for future
passes: the first attempt at the "Nix treats X as a package" rewrite
landed in the wrong sentence (a similarly-worded but unrelated
passage two paragraphs up) -- caught by re-reading the diff before
running vale, not by vale itself (which would have shown 0 remaining
hits either way, since the intended sentence's hit just wouldn't
have been touched -- a silently-wrong edit vale's own count can't
catch). Re-reading the actual diff, not just trusting the before/
after hit count, is what caught it.
21 of 44 left alone -- same recurring legitimate shapes as prior
batches (predicate-adjective copulas, quoted/literal text, generic-
actor statements, negative-capability invariants, "is tracked/rooted/
scoped at X" property-description idioms, and two more thesis-
statement headings matching the "Ownership is declared, not repaired"
precedent from #4100).
Verified: vale docs/process before/after -- 44 -> 21 write-good.Passive
hits, exactly the 23 rewritten, re-read every changed line's full
surrounding context after editing (not just the vale count) to catch
exactly the kind of misplaced-edit mistake described above.
c41c67c949